Final Words

Judged against other entry-level SATA SSD, the ADATA Ultimate SU800 does not offer many significant performance improvements from its use of Micron 3D TLC NAND. Even if Micron's 3D TLC were substantially faster than the planar TLC it is competing against, the capacity of 384Gb per die compared to 128Gb for the planar TLC means that the SU800 has to get by with far fewer NAND chips to stripe accesses across. This parallelism is very important to achieving high performance, but the smallest 128GB SU800 has only three NAND flash chips to work with.

As total NAND capacity per die has increased, the page and erase block sizes have increased also. This is likely a major contributor to garbage collection having a much larger performance impact on the SU800 and Crucial MX300 than earlier TLC drives. Silicon Motion's controller and firmware in the ADATA SU800 don't seem to have adjusted to this quite as well as Micron's firmware has for the Marvell controller in the Crucial MX300. Despite having more spare area due to offering less usable capacity from the same amount of NAND, the 512GB ADATA SU800 seldom outperforms the 525GB MX300.

With the Crucial MX300, Micron chose to offer capacities of 275GB and up, retiring the 128GB capacity class. They also chose not to sample us the 275GB MX300, likely because of its lower performance than the larger capacities. ADATA is emphasizing those smaller capacities with the SU800 and taking on the challenge of offering decent performance with less parallelism available.

For light workloads where SLC caching is highly effective, ADATA has succeeded in roughly matching the performance of the last generation of planar TLC budget SSDs. This has come at the apparent expense of performance on heavier workloads and when working with a full drive. The 512GB SU800 is the smallest capacity that performs well on our ATSB Heavy test, and at all capacities it is important to not let the SU800 fill up or operate without TRIM being used.

Back when most of the SSD market was still using MLC NAND, Silicon Motion established a reputation for offering one of the most power efficient platforms. This advantage has been reduced with the transition to TLC for mainstream drives, and with the SU800 it now seems to be completely gone. In terms of power consumption, the SU800 and every other budget and mainstream SSD are still overshadowed by the Crucial MX300's remarkable efficiency.

  120-128GB 240-275GB 480-525GB 960-1050GB
ADATA SU800 $52.99 (41¢/GB) $81.99 (32¢/GB) $147.07 (29¢/GB) $269.99 (26¢/GB)
ADATA SP550 $48.99 (41¢/GB) $71.97 (30¢/GB) $134.99 (28¢/GB) $299.99 (31¢/GB)
PNY CS1311 $49.99 (42¢/GB) $59.99 (25¢/GB) $129.99 (27¢/GB) $269.99 (28¢/GB)
Samsung 750 EVO $85.98 (72¢/GB) $129.95 (52¢/GB) $139.99 (28¢/GB)  
Samsung 850 EVO   $98.00 (39¢/GB) $169.99 (34¢/GB) $319.99 (32¢/GB)
Crucial MX300   $89.99 (33¢/GB) $146.42 (28¢/GB) $259.99 (25¢/GB)

The ADATA SU800 is priced as an entry-level SSD, but the entire market is heavily affected by an ongoing NAND shortage. There are a few older planar TLC SSDs that are still able to beat the SU800's prices by a few dollars, when they're in stock. But the bigger problem for the SU800 is that ADATA can't reliably beat Micron's pricing on the Crucial MX300. When taking into account the slightly higher usable capacity and better performance and efficiency, the MX300 is a better deal than the equivalent SU800.

That leaves the 128GB SU800 as the only member of the lineup that might make sense to buy at the moment. It has far fewer competitors as 120GB SSDs are disappearing from the market. With the caveat that the 128GB SU800 should only be used in scenarios where it is definitely larger than necessary and will be presented with light workloads, the SU800 is a fine alternative and a reasonable purchase if it's roughly tied for being the cheapest SSD in that capacity class.

Related SATA SSD Reading:

ATTO, AS-SSD & Idle Power Consumption
Comments Locked

35 Comments

View All Comments

  • RamIt - Wednesday, February 1, 2017 - link

    Why is there no comparison to the Intel 600p recently reviewed?
  • extide - Thursday, February 2, 2017 - link

    Probably because it is a PCIe drive. A shopper who is shopping for SATA drives is probably not interested in a PCIe drive.
  • dj_aris - Thursday, February 2, 2017 - link

    Sorry, but since all SATA 3 drives top at theoretical 600MBs but SSD speeds are WAY faster than that, what is the point in testing them?
  • Death666Angel - Thursday, February 2, 2017 - link

    It might just be my eyes, but I see a lot of instances where the drives don't actually achieve the 600MB/s data cap of the SATA3 protocol....
  • dj_aris - Thursday, February 2, 2017 - link

    Indeed, but who cares if it's 600 or 500 or even 300, when you can reach 2000+ using modern pcie storage (with similiar prices). SATA is dead, obviously will not be developed anymore, SATA express drives don't even exist. I mean we don't test DVD drives or floppies, right?
  • doggface - Thursday, February 2, 2017 - link

    Sata is dead? Seriously?
    Also, similar prices?

    So many things wrong with this post.

    Sata SSDs will continue to thrive for years to come. No doubt about that, and while they do, we will need reviews on their performance to help differentiate the good from bad. Especially as the industry continues to peddle TLC and even possibly QLC drives.
  • vladx - Thursday, February 2, 2017 - link

    Upcoming QLC NAND is not something to scowl at. SSD drives using this technology will not be targeted to compete with MLC or even TLC instead they are planned for archival purposes: https://www.pcper.com/news/Storage/FMS-2015-Toshib...
  • Billy Tallis - Thursday, February 2, 2017 - link

    SATA isn't dead, but it is a dead end in the same sense that VGA ports are.
  • extide - Thursday, February 2, 2017 - link

    Not everyone's system is compatible with and/or cannot boot from NVME drives. There is definitely still a need to have these data points.
  • lopri - Thursday, February 2, 2017 - link

    Two of my boards refuse to accept any M.2 drive as a boot drive, leaving me no choice but to go with SATA. Plus SATA is nowhere near dead because it is still much more affordable. Plus there is no convincing argument as to why backups have to be saved in SSDs.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now